Filibuster reform: What 20 Democratic senators have said in favor and 8 Republicans against

Sen. Harry P. Cain (R-Wash.), who says he has enough material for a 17-hour speech, rehearses the speech he has prepared for Senate floor delivery in opposition to the nomination of Mon Wallgren, former Washington governor, to be chairman of the National Resources Security Board, March 8, 1949, in Washington, D.C. Cain rehearses with security organization charts in the background. (AP Photo/Henry Griffin)

What senators have said about the filibuster

Storified by Digital First Media · Wed, Nov 28 2012 13:13:24

The Senate may change the rules around the filibuster. After helping stop a 2010 effort to change the way the Senate works, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said earlier this year that he would now support it, arguing that the Republican minority was abusing the process.

The incoming crop of Democratic senators may play a key role. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), a key leader in the fight for changes to the filibuster, helped raise money for Democratic Senate candidates who support the move, including six who won: Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Tim Kaine (Virginia), Heidi Heitkamp (North Dakota), Martin Heinrich (New Mexico) and Mazie Hirono (Hawaii).

In support of changes:

“I believe that if you look at what Lyndon Johnson had to do when he was the leader, as I am, it was a different world. Why? You know how many filibusters he had to try to override? One. Me? 248.”

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)

“Over the past four years, I have seen the Senate rules abused – particularly the use of the filibuster – at the expense of the American people. We need to protect the rights of the minority, but we must find a way to allow the Senate to work productively so we can meet the challenges we face as a country.”

Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.)

Goal for 2013: we need #filibuster reform to restore function in the #Senate, maintain rights of political minorities & encourage debate.Mark Udall

“Part of the reason that reform can’t occur in the Senate is because of the way they do business. … The filibuster is in dire need of reform. Whether or not it needs to go away, we need to reform the way the filibuster is used, so it is not used in the order of everyday policy, but is only used in exceptional circumstances.”

“Now, one may have taken more than a week. Twenty-four hours a day, but it was something where opposition could express their thoughts in adequate fashion. … At the appropriate time, it came for the vote.”

“I have take an look at some of the proposals. I think we need them. Consider in the last six years, we have had 380 Republican filibusters. When LBJ was leader, there was one filibuster. They abused it to the point where the Senate is a shell of its former self. We need reform that makes a filibuster count.”

“My principal issue is the functioning of the Senate. … I’m not arrogant or naive enough to think that one guy from Maine is going to be able to fundamentally change this structure, but I do think you’ve got to start somewhere, and I do think I can be a catalyst for it.”

In a question-and-answer session, Kerry said he supports “the basics” of a proposal from Sen. Tom Udall to change the rules so that the filibuster is not a “day-to-day tactic” and is a “reasonable process.”

“On the first day of the new session in January, the senators will have a unique opportunity to change the filibuster rule with a majority vote, rather than the normal two-thirds vote. The change can be modest: If someone objects to a bill or a nomination in the United States Senate, they should have to stand on the floor of the chamber and defend their opposition.”

“If we are to preserve the Senate’s function as a check on haste, as a haven for minority views, we must ensure that protection of minority rights is no longer a barrier to any and all action. Limiting excessive filibusters on the motion to proceed is one modest change we can make that addresses this crisis without changing the Senate’s fundamental character.”

“We need to reform the filibuster, an important Senate tradition that protects the minority’s right to continue debate on issues of great importance. One thing we need to do is put the burden on the minority to continue debate – not on a supermajority to end it – and that’s why I introduced legislation last year to make that a reality.”

“I’m not against the notion of a requirement of a ‘talking filibuster,’ so the American people can see very clearly – through our arcane and Byzantine rules and procedures – who is actually being obstructionist. … One of the problems over the past few years is that this obstructionism was so acute, but it was not necessarily transparent for people.”

“If you want to filibuster, you have to come to the floor and stand and talk,” he said. “You can’t just go home and eat dinner … You can’t just stay at home and not return to Washington, and that’s what they’ve been doing on these filibusters.”

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)

I agree w/@SenatorReid, we must change the rules of the Senate & reform the filibuster to get Washington working again http://huff.to/RL8qXkKirsten Gillibrand

“I think that the Senate will … see a difference in filibuster rules, so that we can actually enact what the country wants us to, working with the reelected president. I think that we’ll see just a stronger, progressive move in this country where John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are going to have to listen a little more than they have to the voters.”

Nov. 14: “I absolutely support changes … The Senate has been pretty dysfunctional in the way it’s been operating.”

“I don’t mind a real, live, debating filibuster if somebody feels really strongly. … What’s new and different and wrong is the filibuster of everything by silent filibuster, just to knock off these 30-hour blocks of floor time.”

“I think the backlash will be severe. If you take away minority rights, which is what you’re doing because you’re an ineffective leader, you’ll destroy the place. And if you destroy the place, we’ll do what we have to do to fight back.”

“Then-Sen. Obama thought it would be wrong to make the changes when the Republicans were in the majority; then-Sen. [Joe] Biden thought it was a bad idea when the Democrats were in the minority; and Harry Reid thought it was an awful idea when he was in the minority because he said no one group should be able to run roughshod over the other group.”

“This is not the time to create a divisive distraction that Democrats said in 2006 would destroy the United States Senate. One of the biggest ways to do that, not to [reach a budget deficit deal], is to do what Sen. Reid said in 2006, would be to use the nuclear option to blow up the Senate by trying to change the filibuster rules.”

Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.)

Curtailing the filibuster in the Senate would discourage bipartisanship.Mike Enzi